camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

There are many macro lenses from different manufacturers that you could use. I tend to use Nikon lenses and my macro lens is a Micro Nikkor 105mm f4 manufactured in the late 70's or early 80's.
A prime lens is not a specialized lens but a macro is and by specialized I mean they can focus close but not as close as a true macro. Macro lenses are optimized to photograph extremely close focus subjects to the camera. By the way, modern tele lenses can serve as a "macro" although they will never focus as close as I have already indicated. A macro lens can be used also as a prime and with focal lengths in the range of 90-105 they double as a portrait lens.

Nikon made a 28-105 lens that had "macro" capabilities. It was not a true macro but it was very useful. Right now the lens is being sold at very attractive prices in the second hand market.

rgdudley Loc: Etna NY

[quote=Jack47]I’ve seen a lot on line in reviews but would like advice from Hoggers.
What do you use and why? Using on a D7000. Thanks

Tamron 90 is one of the best... great bokeh too!

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

Nikon calls their "Macro" lenses "Micro". There is no difference, it is just the name.
Here is your answer from today as well. https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-608733-1.html

I agree with using a longer Macro Lens as well. I don't really like using my 50mm Macro for film (or FF digital), a 100mm Pentax macro lens is better. For APS-C the 50mm Macro is better the the 35mm Macro.

My Pentax 50mm f/4 Macro and 100mm f/4 Macro are both vintage film lenses. The 35mm Macro is a "digital" lens. And I also have a 50mm f/4 Takumar M-42 Mount lens. Nikkors typically come in both f/4 and f/2.8 versions.

Picture Taker Loc: Michigan Thumb

I'm not getting involved on which brand but do think you should go to a 100mm as the shorter lenses require you to get too close (and generally scare any live shot away). The 180mm are also good but have a cost to them and generally are not the quality you can get in the 100mm choices. If live insects are your thing then the 180mm is better for you.

Nikon1201

I have the Tokina 100mm and I love it , great macro and tack sharp.

Malco

I have the Canon 100mm f2.8 L Macro. I wish I had bought the 180mm, longer working didtance and easier to light.

Jack47 Loc: Ontario

Stunning pic of the daylilly. Hope I can get some like that. Thanks

Jack47 Loc: Ontario

I pulled the trigger on the Nikon 105 today. Thanks to all who replied.

pila

I am a huge fan of both the 105mm and the 60mm, both Nikon.
Use both for a variety of purposes.

Charles 46277 Loc: Fulton County, KY

Good choice--that is the foundation for all your macro work. If you want even greater magnification, you can use an extension tube between lens and camera to get closer, yet still have a bit of wiggle room between subject and lens.

optic Loc: Southwestern United States

I use the: AF-S VR Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED. I've never really found the need for one that's any shorter. However, since working distance is usually more important to me than 1/1 capability, my favorite is an old 200mm Micro Nikkor f4 AF D. (Read Ken Rockwell's review). Almost in the same league with these and easier financially is the Tamron SP AF 180mm f/3.5 Di LD [IF] Macro. It is every bit an excellent+ long macro lens.

jpgto Loc: North East Tennessee

I used the 85mm on my D7000 and continue to use on the 7200. It produces sharp images but
you have to move a bit closer to your subject than with the 105mm. You get a 1:1 ratio from
this lense.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Your D7000 has a focusing motor in the camera. Because of that, the Tokina AT-X Pro 100mm f/2.8 Macro lens might be a good option. It's one of the most affordable macro lenses, but it's a "motorless" design (like some Nikkors) that relies upon the in-camera motor to autofocus. As a result, on Nikon's "below" the D7000-series, it's manual focus only. But on your camera, no problem.... it will be able to autofocus. I think the current price is in the $350 range for the Tokina 100mm.

The Tokina doesn't have image stabilization, like the Nikkor AF-S 105mm f/2.8 VR does.... for a tad over $800.

Sigma also offers a 105mm f/2.8 Macro lens, with "OS" images stabilization, currently on sale for under $500 (a big discount from the nearly $1000 list price).

Tamron offers two 90mm f/2.8 Macro lenses... A cheaper one for about $450 doesn't have images stabilization, is non internal focusing and uses a slower micro motor type of focus drive. A more expensive one (about $650) has "VC" image stabilization, is internal focusing (IF) and uses faster USD autofocus drive.

All the above lenses are able to shoot full 1:1 (life size) macro. That means that on a camera like the D7000, with an APS-C sensor approx 15x23mm, you can "fill the frame" with a 15x23mm object.

The Micro-Nikkor, Sigma and one of the Tamrons have image stabilization. But, in all honesty, image stabilization isn't a great deal of help at high magnifications like macro lenses do. If you plan to use the lens a lot for non-macro purposes, the image stabilization might be something you want. But if it will primarily be used for macro work, you'd be better served using a tripod or at least a monopod.

The Nikkor's AF-S, Sigma's HSD and one of the Tamron's USD are all faster "ultrasonic" type autofocus drive. The other lenses use slower micro motors. However, don't expect any good macro lens to be particularly fast focusing.... Most are designed with "long throw" focus, which emphasizes precision over speed. That's because high magnification makes for very shallow depth of field effects, which in turn demands very precise focusing. A lot of macro shooters just find it easier to use manual focus, anyway. As with image stabilization, the speed of focus drive may be more important if planning to use the lens for non-macro purposes.... But don't expect a macro lens to serve for any sort of sports/action photography. They simply don't have the AF speed to quickly acquire focus or track movement, the way some non-macro lenses do.

The Nikkor, Sigma and the more expensive Tamron are Internal Focusing (IF) lenses. The Tokina and the less expensive Tamron are not. This means they don't increase in length when focused closer. That may not be a big deal with non-macro lenses and distances, but it can be with macro and close-up work. Non-IF macro lenses can double in length when focused to their highest magnification. Lenses in the 90 to 105mm range of focal lengths typically have around 12" minimum focus distance (MFD)... But that's measured from the film/sensor plane of the camera, so part of the camera and the lens itself occupy part of that space, plus anything mounted to the front of the lens. Actual working distance will be a lot less. An IF lens may be able to offer more working distance. HOWEVER, with optics there's always a trade off.... IF lenses may not increase in length, but are often longer than non-IF lenses. Also, IF lenses actually change focal length a little as they are focused closer. I don't know how this effects the three lenses mentioned above, but I know the Canon 100mm macro lens I use, which is IF, is actually closer to 70mm "true" focal length by the time it's focused to full 1:1 magnification.

There are many other macro lenses available. I've concentrated on the ones above because I believe the range of focal lengths from 90 to 105mm is a good one for "general purpose macro"... a good first or only macro lens. Shorter focal lengths put you closer to subjects, which might be useful in studio shooting small objects under controlled lighting conditions, but can be a problem in the field with live subjects or risking casting a shadow when you have less control over lighting. Longer focal lengths are available too, but are a lot harder to hold steady and more likely to require using a tripod or at least a monopod. They also tend to be a lot pricier.

The LAST thing you have to worry about with most macro lenses is image quality. Virtually all of them are among the sharpest lenses made.

As to your second question....

There are a number of differences between a 50mm "standard" lens and a 50mm "macro". The standard lens is optimized to focus at a distance of around 8 feet or more. There's actually some curvature to the plane of focus at that distance, though the lens' depth of field probably hides most of it and the lens doesn't need any "correction". A 50mm macro lens, on the other hand, is designed to focus to about 8 inches and there's almost no curvature to the plane of focus that close. As a result, most macro lenses are "flat field" designs, optimized and corrected for this because depth of field can be super shallow.

As mentioned above, the non-macro lens is also likely to have faster focus (be it manual or auto).... the focus ring may only need to be rotated 120 degrees to go all the way from infinity to the lens' closest focus. To deal with super shallow depth of field and the need for more accurate focusing, a macro lens' focus ring might rotate 240 degrees or more, for more precision, but less speed.

It's also not uncommon for standard 50mm lenses to have fairly large maximum apertures.... f/1.8, f/1.4 and even f/1.2 are available. Most of those have a minimum aperture of f/16 or, in a few cases, f/22. A 50mm macro more typically is has a max aperture of f/2.8 or smaller... and it's not uncommon for them to be able to stop down to f/22 or even f/32.

Some macro lenses also have a "Focus Limiter", which is used to help speed up focus performance in certain situations. For example, you might restrict the lens to focus only within close-up distances, so that it doesn't go hunting for focus farther away... or vice versa. You see these on all the lenses listed above. Focus limiters are also fairly common on telephoto lenses. But you rarely see them on non-macro lenses with shorter focal lengths like 50mm.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

I have both Canon 100mm and 180mm... also the 65mm MP-E, 45mm TS-E and a couple other close-up/macro lenses.

The 100mm is BY FAR my most used macro lens. It's easily the most versatile.

The 180mm is MUCH more likely to need a tripod for a steady shot. It's also a lot slower focusing (even though both lenses have USM focus drive).

Plus the 180mm makes for incredibly shallow depth of field, such as this:



IMO the 100mm is the best compromise of working distance, hand-holdability and overall performance. Something I love about the Canon 100s is that they can optionally be fitted with a tripod, ring, too. (The non-L/non-IS 100mm version uses the same "B" ring as the 180mm and 65mm. The 100mm L/IS uses a uses a unique "D" ring.)

All my other macro/close-up lenses are more specialized.

You made a good choice with the 100mm! Enjoy it.

mohandas

Hai friends ,

There are some differences between a Prime lens and a Prime macro lens !

In true sense ,

All lenses including zoom lenses are must be capable of giving three dimensional quality to the images they captured .

In case of a macro lens it must be capable of giving corner to corner sharpness and flat field correction to the captured images !

A Macro lens is a lens which can capable one third ( 1: 3 ) to full size or life size image ( 1:1 ) of an object .

Nikon calls their macro lenses as micro lenses ! Actually it is misleading !

A true micro lens is a lens which can capable to give double size ( 2 : 1 ) to at least 5 times ( 5 : 1 ) or 10 times ( 10 : 1) bigger size image of an object !

[ 😎 Important. 🤣 ..... The figure left to the ratio ( : ) sign indicates the size of image and the figure right side of the ratio sign indicates the size of the object . ]

If you can closely verify the images shoot with a prime lens and a macro lens , you can realise that the images given by macro lens is flat in nature and the pictures given by prime lens are more three dimensional !

Check the above with a prime lens and with a macro prime lens .

With warm regards ,

Mohandas Pazhambalakode , PINCODE - 678 722 , Palakkad , Kerala state , INDIA.

E.mail : mohandaspzmpkd@rediffmail.com ,
imagemohandas@yahoo.co.in